DEMOCRATS, MEET YOUR BIGGEST NIGHTMARE

Over the past 18 months, I have learned more than I ever thought possible, and done things completely outside my little private lifestyle, as have hundreds of thousands -- no millions -- have done. A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step. What we saw happening got us out of our comfort zone, to become engaged in unknown territory, because the very definition of Conservatives is non-combative, who works hard to earn a decent living, and take care of family.

Many of us saw that our country's foundation was in great peril. We became engaged as never before, and thanks to the invaluable information we absorbed from scholars such as Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, confirmation from people such as Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, endless brilliant bloggers, we were able to take action. As the months went by, we became stronger and more outspoken. Our numbers grew to astonishing proportions, and we were unavoidably visible at rallys, Tea Party rallys, and Town Hall meetings. So much so, that we have been demonized by the leftist loons, who have the media to promote their vile rhetoric.

That means one thing -- it's working. We only have to look at the stunning success in Virginia, New Jersey, and the Massachusets Miracle. But, one thing is very clear. If we are to preserve our great republic, we can no longer take our eye off of government officials. If history has proven anything, it is that people crave power, and left unattended, they will take freedom away in order to gain more and more. Our Founding Fathers knew what it was like to live under tyranny, and they constructed our Constitution carefully to protect us from ever losing freedom, but it, too, must be protected. We have seen our Constitution ripped to shreds, especially lately.

A quote from [highly recommended] Mark Levin's last chapter 'A Conservative Manefesto' in his book, LIBERTY and TYRANNY:

The Conservative must become more engaged in public matters. It is in his nature to live and let live, to attend to his family, to volunteer time with his church and synagogue, and to quietly assist a friend, a neighbor, or even a stranger. These are certainly admirable qualities that contribute to the overall health of the community. But it is no longer enough. The Statist's counterrevolution has turned the instrumentalities of public affairs and public governance against the civil society. They can no longer be left to the devices of the Statist, which is largely the case today.

A moving piece written by Carol Peracchio, a nurse, in American Thinker speaks volumns of this phenomenon, and I shared Paulette's emotions on that glorious night.


Democrats, Meet Your Biggest Nightmare
by Carol Peracchio, February 9, 2010

My husband's cousin Paulette called me the morning of January 20 from Massachusetts. Breathless with excitement, her words tumbling out so fast I could barely keep up, she recounted the joy of Scott Brown's win in the special election to the U.S. Senate.

Paulette is 66 years old. She and her husband are retired. She has an active social life which includes lots of friends and competitive amateur tennis. She babysits her granddaughter and checks on her 92-year-old father in Florida every day. She told me she'd never been politically active, "except for voting, of course."

But all that changed after Barack Obama's election. Paulette started watching FOX News and listening to Rush Limbaugh. Health care reform, with its 500-billion-dollar Medicare cuts, scared her out of her wits. When she learned I write articles for AT, mostly about health care, she started calling me periodically last summer. We'd commiserate on how discouraging it was that no one in Washington is listening, or even seems to care. Paulette, like so many of us, felt frustrated and helpless.

Then Senator Kennedy passed away, and a political activist was born.

Paulette described her first meeting with Scott Brown. A friend called one morning in late November to tell her that State Senator Brown was coming to town that day to open a campaign office.

"I barely had time to throw on clothes. I didn't care how I looked," she told me. She rushed over to the office and signed up that day to work. "I told Scott Brown that we are going to win this." I asked her how she could be so certain back in November, when absolutely no one out here believed Brown had a chance.

"I knew we would win because I lived there. I talk to lots of people. I knew how we all felt about what Obama and the Democrats were doing."

Then she added, "I just couldn't take any more."

So Paulette went to work. She staffed the office several days per week, answering phones and handing out signs and literature. She knocked on doors all over her neighborhood. She visited shut-ins and helped them request absentee ballots. She helped organize volunteers to drive voters to the polls. Just before Christmas, she called to give me another update. She was off to follow up on some of those absentee ballots. "There's a family down the street that has four. I need to make sure they got mailed."

Every day when Paulette would drive to the elementary school to pick up her granddaughter, she would stand next to her car and wave her "Scott Brown for U.S. Senate" sign at the passing traffic. "I get a few thumbs down," she reported, "but most people honk their horns and smile."

When Paulette called me the Friday before the election, she hadn't a scintilla of doubt that Brown would win. "We're going to do it, Carol!" she exclaimed. "We're going to stop Obama!" The polls reflected her optimism. But on the political shows over the weekend, conservatives appeared afraid to be hopeful. More than once I heard it expressed that a Brown win was a long shot. They consoled themselves by saying that even if he lost by a narrow margin, that would be a victory in blue, blue Massachusetts.

A loss for Brown wouldn't be a victory for Paulette, however. To Paulette, victory meant Scott Brown would be senator.

Conservative internet forums were just as pessimistic as the TV pundits. Over and over I read comments gloomily describing how Brown would have to win by double digits to overcome the inevitable ACORN and union fraud. I asked Paulette about it. She laughed it off. "We're going to win," she repeated.

So on Tuesday night, as Martha Coakley conceded hours, if not days, earlier than the conventional wisdom predicted, I had the feeling that Paulette was the only person who wasn't surprised. The next morning, I could do nothing but offer my deep gratitude to Paulette and the others in Massachusetts who "just couldn't take any more."

Scott Brown deserves credit, of course, for fighting an amazing campaign. But I think it's the Paulettes in Massachusetts who have the most to teach us. Such as:

1. There are a lot of voters out there who agree with us. Poll after poll shows that conservatives make up the largest voting bloc in America. It's high time we conservatives actually believed it.

2. There is no substitute, absolutely none, for personal, grassroots involvement in campaigns. Too many of us want to just "mail in" our support. That way, none of our neighbors will know that we are actually (gasp!) conservative. Go back and reread #1. There's a good chance your neighbors are conservatives, too.

3. Democrat and ACORN fraud cannot overcome a tidal wave of conservative and like-minded independent voters, even in liberal Massachusetts and New Jersey. For far too long we have accepted the inevitability of losing because of Democrat voter fraud. Then we just throw in the towel and don't even try to defeat the entrenched liberals. I'm certainly not saying fraud doesn't exist and that we don't need to be diligent in our efforts to combat it. But ACORN is no match for energized, intelligent, informed conservatives.

4. We have to get involved early. Signing up to make telephone calls the last weekend of a campaign, while better than nothing, isn't good enough. It was almost sad to see busloads of SEIU members rolling into Boston for President Obama's speech two days before the election. Outside of giving the media a thrill and depressing Beltway conservatives, the whole effort was a waste of time. Primaries for this year's congressional elections are starting now.

The time for conservative involvement is yesterday. Brown's win taught us that no seat is 100% safe. (My dream is to see that proved again in Barney Frank's district.) My own congressman is a blue dog Democrat who voted for cap-and-trade. I wonder if he has any idea what's in store for him this election year.

So here's to you, Paulette, and all your fellow patriots in Massachusetts. I can almost hear our Founders saying, "Ya done good!"

Carol Peracchio is a registered nurse.

WHAT NOW FOR THE TEA PARTIES?

Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. Yes, we won that very precious 41st vote, and thank God for that. Dennis Prager said, "We avoided a torpedo, but you don't win a war by avoiding a torpedo." Americans are not prepared to spend themselves into oblivion, and the Massachusetts election made that very clear.

Already we see that Scott Brown is endorsing John McCain for re-election in Arizona, and Brown is supporting Obama's commission to reduce the deficit, rather than the Conrad-Gregg proposal.

We needed to get someone into that congressional seat to stop the bleeding, but if it were a regular primary it might have been a different outcome. We have time for choices in upcoming primaries such as Florida, with Marco Rubio definitely the best conservative choice over stimulus and health care approving Charlie Crist. In California, Chuck DeVore is the conservative choice over moderate Carly Fiorina, and anybody is the favorite over moderate, illegal alien amnesty advocate John McCain in Arizona.

The struggle for the TEA Party movement is to get the RINOs out and core valued conservatives in, starting with Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. ( UPDATE: I'm hearing J.D. Hayworth may hang up his mic and run against McCain)

Andrew Ian Dodge writes some food for thought in Pajamas Media:

What Now for the Tea Parties?
Scott Brown will no doubt disappoint some conservatives, but does the movement really want to associate itself so closely with the GOP?
by Andrew Ian Dodge, January 23, 2010

Scott Brown has managed to take Ted Kennedy’s former seat in Massachusetts and swing the independent voters from the Democrats to the GOP.

The right is pleased with itself, especially the tea party movement. They believe that by electing Brown, they have driven a stake through the heart of the health care vampire.

Unfortunately — like any horror story — the villain may yet live. Democrats had already begun drafting contingency plans for Brown’s election when things started looking bad. They will consider every possible trick in the book before considering the white flag.

Conservatives may in fact be better positioned should the Democrats continue their arrogant ways and push through health care (which will probably be the Senate plan now). If the president and his party ignore the overwhelming anger of the American people, it will be curtains for many Democrats.

Alas, political observers — including this one — think that the liberals who control the Democratic Party are so dedicated to the cause of universal health care that they will sacrifice as many seats as necessary. They have been waiting 30 or more years for the right opportunity to push their socialist agenda, and would rather go down in flames than step back.

The tea party movement now has a big problem. They have thrown their lot behind a RINO in the form of Scott Brown, a man who voted for RomneyCare. Brown leans further left than Dede Scozzafava. Now the RINOs will point to his victory and see it as a sign that their “moderate” ways are vote winners, and all the angst that should be directed at the RINOs — for helping get us in this mess in the first place — may dissipate. Will conservatives be able to make a case for primary challengers against the RINOs for 2010? Will their short-term pragmatism prove too clever by half in the long run? After all, Brown did not thank the tea party movement in his victory speech, despite the many tea partiers who helped him win.

Will tea party movement conservatives be able to guide the Republican Party in the wake of a RINO being elected in Kennedy’s old seat? And what has this whole campaign done to the movement that tries to proclaim itself to be non-partisan? When the Republican Party needed them, the tea party movement fell into line. How can the movement proclaim its independence when it has just stumped for a Republican who is not even a conservative?

This special election has been a gift to the Republicans in their quest to co-opt the tea party. Surely it would be ironic if Ted Kennedy in death helped the Republican Party get back to electability. Yet Kennedy may have delivered lapsed Republicans back to the party, and split the tea party movement so it is no longer as big a threat to both parties.

Ultimately, if the tea party movement wants to see the House and the Senate spurn its liberal Democrats, they should hope for shenanigans. Voters have very short memories, and this vote for Brown may placate them. In victory, the tea party movement must continue to press its message of limited government, fiscal conservatism, and the free market.

They need to quickly return to the task at hand. Scott Brown’s election does not render the April 15 rallies less important. The movement needs to keep its eye and pressure on elected officials in D.C., and they also need to make sure Brown is seated as soon as possible.

It is up to the tea party movement regarding whether this will be merely a Pyrrhic victory in the long campaign against the socialist agenda. This is one small gain — possibly even a temporary one if Brown votes as he did in Massachusetts — in the long quest to return the U.S. back to its constitutional roots of prudent governance.


Andrew Ian Dodge blogs at Dodgeblogium.

THE MEANING OF BROWN

It's not surprising to see the Democrats in denial. When have they ever taken responsibility for the result of their actions, especially this narcissistic leader? The most comical of all was Obama's statement comparing Scott Brown's victory to his own! Scott Brown rode to victory campaigning against everything Obama and his administration stands for.

What this means is America has had enough. We are frightened, disappointed, appalled, running out of money (some bankrupt), unemployed, and angry. It isn't hard to see the hypocrisy when a man who has campaigned hard for the last 11 months about the need for his health care 'PLAN', never mentions it in his stumping for Martha Coakley.

The Democtrats have spent this past year ignoring and dismissing the TEA Party movement starting in the early spring with tea parties across the nation; during the summer at town hall meetings; and an overwhelming march to Washington DC in the fall. In addition, they dismissed the millions and millions of phone calls, faxes and letters from a nation begging them not to pass this atrocious government run health care bill. They were "showed arrogance being dismissive, even derisive", if I may steal from a quote of Obama describing our country on his "Bash America Tour". Is it any wonder Mr. Brown took the country by storm? A man of conviction, on solid ground, not whining or vacillating.

This special election was profound, and the always brilliant Charles Krauthammer illustrates in his current excellent piece in Real Clear Politics:


The Meaning of Brown
by Charles Krauthammer, January 22, 2010

WASHINGTON -- On Jan. 14, five days before the Massachusetts special election, President Obama was in full bring-it-on mode as he rallied House Democrats behind his health care reform. "If Republicans want to campaign against what we've done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have."

The bravado lasted three days. When Obama campaigned in Boston on Jan. 17 for Obamacare supporter Martha Coakley, not once did he mention the health care bill. When your candidate is sinking, you don't throw her a millstone.

After Coakley's defeat, Obama pretended that the real cause was a generalized anger and frustration "not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

Let's get this straight: The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that ... it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts? Why, the man is omnipotent.

And the Democrats are delusional: Scott Brown won by running against Obama not Bush. He won by brilliantly nationalizing the race, running hard against the Obama agenda, most notably Obamacare. Killing it was his No. 1 campaign promise.

Bull's-eye. An astonishing 56 percent of Massachusetts voters, according to Rasmussen, called health care their top issue. In a Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates poll, 78 percent of Brown voters said their vote was intended to stop Obamacare. Only a quarter of all voters in the Rasmussen poll cited the economy as their top issue, nicely refuting the Democratic view that Massachusetts was just the usual anti-incumbent resentment you expect in bad economic times.

Brown ran on a very specific, very clear agenda. Stop health care. Don't Mirandize terrorists. Don't raise taxes; cut them. And no more secret backroom deals with special interests.

These deals -- the Louisiana purchase, the Cornhusker kickback -- had engendered a national disgust with the corruption and arrogance of one-party rule. The final straw was the union payoff -- in which labor bosses smugly walked out of the White House with a five-year exemption from a ("Cadillac") health insurance tax Democrats were imposing on the 92 percent of private-sector workers who are not unionized.

The reason both wings of American liberalism -- congressional and mainstream media -- were so surprised at the force of anti-Democratic sentiment is that they'd spent Obama's first year either ignoring or disdaining the clear early signs of resistance: the tea-party movement of the spring and the town-hall meetings of the summer. With characteristic condescension, they contemptuously dismissed the protests as the mere excrescences of a redneck, retrograde, probably racist rabble.

You would think lefties could discern a proletarian vanguard when they see one. Yet they kept denying the reality of the rising opposition to Obama's social democratic agenda when summer turned to fall and Virginia and New Jersey turned Republican in the year's two gubernatorial elections.

The evidence was unmistakable: Independents, who in 2008 had elected Obama, swung massively against the Democrats: dropping 16 points in Virginia, 21 in New Jersey. On Tuesday, it was even worse: Independents, who had gone 2-to-1 Republican in Virginia and New Jersey, now went 3-to-1 Republican in hyper-blue Massachusetts. Nor was this an expression of the more agitated elements who vote in obscure low-turnout elections. The turnout on Tuesday was the highest for any nonpresidential Massachusetts election in 20 years.

Democratic cocooners will tell themselves that Coakley was a terrible candidate who even managed to diss Curt Schilling. True, Brown had Schilling. But Coakley had Obama. When the bloody sock beats the presidential seal -- of a man who had them swooning only a year ago -- something is going on beyond personality.

That something is substance -- political ideas and legislative agendas. Democrats, if they wish, can write off their Massachusetts humiliation to high unemployment, to Coakley or, the current favorite among sophisticates, to generalized anger. That implies an inchoate, unthinking lashing-out at whoever happens to be in power -- even at your liberal betters who are forcing on you an agenda that you can't even see is in your own interest.

Democrats must so rationalize, otherwise they must take democracy seriously, and ask themselves: If the people really don't want it, could they possibly have a point?

"If you lose Massachusetts and that's not a wake-up call," said moderate -- and sentient -- Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, "there's no hope of waking up."

I say: Let them sleep.


letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Copyright 2010, Washington Post Writers Group

THAT OLD OBAMA MAGIC IS BACK

It's been a long time since America has been under a Democratic rule without some kind of balance, and every time they have such power, it doesn't take long for them to remind us why we don't like them. We are a center right country, with strong Christian values, no matter how much noise the far left radicals are compelled to make. America was taken for a ride last year, and the timing couldn't have been more ripe.

Well, Tuesday, January 19th, America said "We've had enough!" Although the election was in Massachusett(e)s, across the nation citizens rallied in his support, which goes to show you what the 2010 elections will bring. All of us make a difference. We are united against this oppression. We are focused, and will remain engaged for as long as it takes.

Scott Brown has been as inspirtion, and Obama is unraveling at the seams, blaming everything and everyone in his line of fire, attacking and criticizing everyone else, including (as always) George W. Bush and especially the private sector. If he destroys the private sector, he is one step closed to government run 'everything'. So now, Obama is out there, where he's most comfortable, in campaign mode, BS-ing and attacking the people who actually create jobs, taxing and regulating the private sector so they can no longer provide these jobs.

He says it's not about him, but in the same sentence it ends with all the I, me's you can count. Ann Coulter writes a wonderful piece on America's awakening and Obama's denial:



That Old Obama Magic Is Back
by Ann Coulter, January 20, 2010

Once again, the people have spoken, and this time they quoted what Dick Cheney said to Pat Leahy.

Less than two weeks ago, The New York Times said that so much as a "tighter-than-expected" victory for Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley would incite "soul-searching among Democrats nationally," which sent Times readers scurrying to their dictionaries to look up this strange new word, "soul."

A close win for Coakley, the Times said, would constitute "the first real barometer of whether problems facing the party" will affect the 2010 elections.

But when Coakley actually lost the election by an astounding 5 points, the Chicago boys in the White House decided it was the chick's fault.

Democratic candidate Martha Coakley may be a moral monster, but it's ridiculous to blame her for losing the election. She lost because of the Democrats' obsession with forcing national health care down the nation's throat.

Coakley campaigned exactly the way she should have.

As a Democrat running in a special election for a seat that had been held by a Democratic icon (and another moral monster) for the past 46 years in a state with only 12 percent registered Republicans, Coakley's objective was to have voters reading the paper on Friday, saying: "Hey, honey, did you know there was a special election four days ago? Yeah, apparently Coakley won, though it was a pretty low turnout."

Ideally, no one except members of government unions and Coakley's immediate family would have even been aware of the election.

And until Matt Drudge began covering it like a presidential election a week ago, it might have turned out that way.

Coakley had already won two statewide elections, while her Republican opponent, Scott Brown, had only won elections in his district. She had endorsements from the Kennedy family and the current appointed Democratic senator, Paul Kirk -- as well as endless glowing profiles in The Boston Globe.

And by the way, as of Jan. 1, Brown had spent $642,000 on the race, while Coakley had spent $2 million.

On Jan. 8, just 11 days before the election, The New York Times reported: "A Brown win remains improbable, given that Democrats outnumber Republicans by 3 to 1 in the state and that Ms. Coakley, the state's attorney general, has far more name recognition, money and organizational support."

It was in that article that the Times said a narrow Coakley win would be an augury for the entire Democratic Party. But now she's being hung out to dry so that Democrats don't have to face the possibility that Obama's left-wing policies are to blame.

Alternatively, Democrats are trying to write off Brown's colossal victory as the standard seesawing of public sentiment that hits both Republicans and Democrats from time to time. As MSNBC's Chris Matthews explained, it was just the voters saying "no" generally, but not to anything in particular.

Except when Republicans win political power, they hold onto it long enough to govern. The Democrats keep being smacked down by the voters immediately after being elected and revealing their heinous agenda.

As a result, for the past four decades, American politics has consisted of Republicans controlling Washington for eight to 14 years -- either from the White House or Capitol Hill -- thus allowing Americans to forget what it was they didn't like about Democrats, whom they then carelessly vote back in. The Democrats immediately remind Americans what they didn't like about Democrats, and their power is revoked at the voters' first possible opportunity.

Obama has cut the remembering-what-we-don't-like-about-Democrats stage of this process down from two to four years to about 10 months. Folks, I'm convinced that if we all work really hard, we can get it down to three months.

Four years of Jimmy Carter gave us two titanic Reagan landslides, peace and prosperity for eight blessed years -- and even a third term for his feckless vice president, George H.W. Bush.

Two years of Bill Clinton gave us a historic Republican sweep of Congress, which killed the entire Clinton agenda (with the exception of partial-birth abortion and felony obstruction of justice) -- and also gave us two terms for George W. Bush.

And now, merely one year of Obama and a Democratic Congress has given us the first Republican senator from Massachusetts in 31 years.

In other recent news, last November, New Jersey voters, who haven't voted for a Republican for president since 1988, threw out their incumbent Democratic governor, Jon Corzine. In Virginia, which Obama carried by 6 points a year earlier, a religious-right Republican won the governor's office by 17 points.

Sen. Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, won his last election in 2006 by 28 points -- the largest margin for a Democratic Senate candidate in that state in a quarter-century.

Since voting for the Senate health care bill last Christmas, the once-bulletproof Sen. Nelson not only gets booed out of Omaha pizzerias, but he has also seen his job approval rating fall to 42 percent and his disapproval rating soar to 48 percent. (Meanwhile, the junior senator from Nebraska, Mike Johanns, who voted against the bill, has a job approval rating of 63 percent.)

The Democrats have no natural majority because they have no fundamental principles -- at least none that they are willing to state out loud. They are like a drunken vagrant who emerges from the alley to cause havoc every few years. They are the perpetual toothache of American politics.

To be sure, the fact that 52 percent of Massachusetts voters are racist, sexist tea-baggers -- i.e., voted for a Republican -- means only that the Democrats just went from having the largest congressional majority in a generation to the second largest. But this was "Teddy Kennedy's seat." And it was in Massachusetts.

Now, no Democrat is safe.

But the country just got a lot safer.


-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?topic_name=Ann+Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander," ""How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," "Godless," "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans" and most recently, "Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault America."
-----------------------------------------------------

GREAT SCOTT !!

Great Scott, he did it!! It was a catharsis, and congratulations from a grateful republic.

Can you hear us now ?

Massachussetts Armageddon: Dems Going “All Out” for Coakley in Final 3 Days

With so much on the line, the Dems are pulling out all the stops. The SEIU busses have "rolled into town" and the ACORN "boots" are on the ground. Let's pray there are enough lookouts out there to keep it at least honest, and that the backlash is so phenominal there will be no question who has won.

Organizing for America (OFA) is in shock and sending out email bombs, Ed Schultz of MSNBC said on his radio show, "I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are!", and the Kennedy family still thinks the seat belongs to the family, as Patrick shouts "Please volunteer to help in the race for my father’s seat”. But last I checked, we were still a Republic, although on shaky ground.

If you believe in a "Massachusetts Miracle", let's all get out and rally for Scott Brown.

More skulduggery in a piece from Pajamas Media:


Massachussetts Armageddon: Dems Going “All Out” for Coakley in Final Three Days
by Zombie, January 16, 2010

Stop counting those chickens.

Obama and the Democrats have not conceded the Massachussetts senate race, as some have suggested. Quite the opposite: This morning, Obama’s national Democratic activist group Organizing for America sent out a mass email to supporters saying they will fight tooth and nail to hang on to “Ted Kennedy’s seat”:

OFA is going all out in Massachusetts — we’re sending organizers, knocking on doors, and making phone calls by the tens of thousands to make sure that folks know how to participate.

It’s a huge effort, it’s expensive, and time is short. But with the outcome uncertain and the stakes sky high, I don’t want to wake up the morning after the election thinking that we could have done something more. If you feel the same way, please donate $5 or more to help us make Martha Coakley the next senator from Massachusetts…

This is in sharp contrast to some reports yesterday claiming that the Democrats are already making plans for how to handle the inevitable defeat in Massachussetts.

Of course, the email is also full of the usual truth-stretching hyperbole intended to rile up the liberal base:

The polls are tightening as right-wing money floods the state, and one even shows the race to be a dead heat between progressive champion Martha Coakley and her extreme opponent. The truth is, special elections often have very low turnout and are notoriously unpredictable.

The stakes are just too high to leave Martha’s victory to chance.

If we lose, Sen. Ted Kennedy’s seat will be in the hands of someone who opposes everything he fought for.

This of course is laughable — Scott Brown would actually be among the most liberal Republicans in the Senate. But hey, facts play no role in this modern era of do-or-die politics.

Republicans are beginning to think Massachussetts is in the bag. Democrats are betting the rent money that the seat can be saved.

Who ever imagined an election Armageddon would happen so soon into Obama’s presidency?

MASSACHUSETTS MIRACLE

Wow! This video is exhilarating.

There's plenty of time to pass this around before the monumental special election of Massachusetts Scott Brown vs. Martha Coakley on Tuesday, January 19th (h/t Conservative Blogs Central):

Dem Scheme: Seat Brown Late if he Wins, Until After Health Care Gets to Senate

As today's politics become more and more totalitarian, the overreach of the far left radicals in this administration is beyond belief. A big part of American exceptionalism is our freedom, and voting rights is right up there in the top five. We now have a government hell-bent on transforming America back to the day of King George and the British Empire.

When Bill Owens was declared the winner in the NY-23rd race over Douglas Hoffman, they certified Owens to the Senate in record time. Now, the left is threatening to hold up certifying Scott Brown until after government run health care goes back to the Senate, should he win. Should Coakley win, of course she would be wisked in ASAP. Is this a democracy? Is there any way to prevent this? There is time to prepare for this inconsistency. Can this be done?

The unethical and illegal maneuverings of this administration are just mind boggling. This bill effects far too much for it to be handled with so many unprecedented machinations.

Dan Perrin writes more on this in Red State:


Dem Scheme: Seat Brown Late if he Wins, Until After Health Care Gets to Senate
by Dan Perrin, January 10, 2010

(At 11;59 PM on 1/8 Moe Lane posted on this story, here. I’m just adding another log to the fire.)

In a clear demonstration of the Speaker’s comment that we will do “almost anything” to pass health care, the Democrats have said they will delay seating Scott Brown, the GOP candidate for Senate in Massachusetts if he wins the race for former Senator Kennedy’s Senate seat on January 19th.

Talk about lighting a torch while standing is in a field of gasoline! The Dems would be really putting on their crazy train if they tried this.

This plan is rank with corruption. Not only would they be denying the will of the people of Massachusetts, but they would be corrupting our process even further to do it — I mean, besides buying off Senators Nelson and Landrieu — you know.

For the Dems to be planning in this level of detail for a loss is revealing, and puts an explanation point on the great anger at ObamaCare in the nation — and the Dems desperation in even considering this CHEAT.

Here are excerpts from the Boston Herald:

“Friday, a spokesman for Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, who is overseeing the election but did not respond to a call seeking comment, said certification of the Jan. 19 election by the Governor’s Council would take a while.

“Because it’s a federal election,” spokesman Brian McNiff said. “We’d have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in.”

“Another source told the Herald that Galvin’s office has said the election won’t be certified until Feb. 20 - well after the president’s address.

“Since the U.S. Senate doesn’t meet again in formal session until Jan. 20, Bay State voters will have made their decision before a vote on health-care reform could be held. But Kirk and Galvin’s office said Friday a victorious Brown would be left in limbo.

“In contrast, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) was sworn in at the U.S. House of Representatives on Oct. 18, 2007, just two days after winning a special election to replace Martin Meehan. In that case, Tsongas made it to Capitol Hill in time to override a presidential veto of the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.”

Even in Massachusetts, Weak Support for Dem Health Care Bill

In an interesting poll analysis, Massachusetts shows weak support for the Democrat health care bill. This is a state that knows first hand what government health care brings -- disaster. Amazing, for a state that has far more registered Democrat voters than Republican.

The analysis illustrates how this administration is completely ignoring the will of the people, and governing on their own. They have closed off the American people from seeing how the health care bill is being put together in its final critical stages. A bill that will affect all of us, and take governmental control of another major chunk of our economy. It's an example of many more takeovers ahead which includes Cap and Tax, and amnesty for illegals.

This is what Americans have to look forward to, until we can reduce their totalitarian power. The special election for that 41st senatorial vote coming up on January 19th is crutial, and the Obama team knows it. They are pulling out all the stops to make sure they don't lose this power, and all Americans across the country can help at Scott Brown's RedInvadesBlue.com. There's an excellent chance for a Republican win in this clearly blue state. Mitt Romney won the governorship.

Byron York analyzes Massachusetts in the Washington Examiner:


Even in Massachusetts, Weak Support for Dem Health Care Bill
by Byron York, Chief Political Correspondent - January 10, 2010

The race to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts is shaping up as a referendum on health care reform. If you look inside the numbers of the Boston Globe poll -- the one that has Democrat Martha Coakley leading Republican Scott Brown by 15 percentage points -- you'll see that more voters name health care reform as the election's top important issue than name jobs and the economy. That's a striking reversal of opinion among the American public overall. And just 43 percent of Massachusetts voters support the Democratic national health care plan now making its way through Congress, versus 36 percent who oppose. In one of the bluest states in the country -- and one with up-close experience with a state health care regime that resembles the plan under consideration for the nation as a whole -- that is strikingly weak support. And that support is pretty much limited to Democrats; independents and Republicans are opposed.

Breaking down opinion by party, 65 percent of Democrats support reform, while 11 percent say they oppose it and 20 percent say they don't know. Among independents, 33 percent favor reform, while 43 percent oppose it and 23 percent say they don't know. And among Republicans, five percent favor reform, while 82 percent oppose it and 10 percent say they don't know.

Looking a little more closely at the numbers, it's clear that opponents of reform are far, far more intense in their feelings than supporters. Among Republicans, 65 percent say they strongly oppose reform, while 17 percent say they somewhat oppose it (making for that total of 82 percent opposed). Among Democrats, just 28 percent say they strongly support reform, while 37 percent say they somewhat favor it (making for the 65 percent total figure). Among independents, 29 percent strongly oppose it, while just 13 percent strongly support it.

That intensity of opposition likely accounts for the poll's finding that Massachusetts voters believe health care reform, and not the economy, is the most important issue in the race. Among all voters, 31 percent name health care reform as the most important issue, while 27 percent say jobs and the economy. Thirty-five percent of Republican voters name health care reform as the most important issue, versus 20 percent who say jobs and the economy. Among independents, 29 percent name health care reform, versus 23 percent who say jobs and the economy. Among Democrats, 29 percent say health care reform, versus 32 percent who say jobs and the economy.

The bottom line: In a state where support for the Democratic national health care plan should be strongest, the current bills making their way through Congress cannot muster majority support. If Coakley is elected, she will cast the 60th and decisive vote in the Senate to pass a plan that not even half the people in her home state support.

An Alert From the Scott Brown Campaign in Mass. Jan 19th Election

This is not an endorsement of a candidate, but a fight to get that all important 41st vote in the United States Senate, where Harry Reid and his Chicago style thugs have taken over and run Congress in silent, backdoor tactics.

In an email today, Scott Brown is alerting us about a final push by MoveOn.org and the SEIU in Massachusetts. Since we all know how they fight, it's not pretty, so here is their request for help:


"OUR BROWN BRIGADE IS STRONG, AND OUR MORALE IS HIGH"
Scott Brown, January 9, 2010

The far left wing attack machine is stepping up to try and defeat our movement to win the Special Election for the United States Senate on January 19th. The radical MoveOn.org has decided to MoveIn to Massachusetts to try and help the lethargic Martha Coakley campaign gain some traction. The SEIU, the nation's largest public employee union is also pouring thousands of dollars into this race to defeat our movement.

These groups like MoveOn.org and the SEIU along with the political machine in Massachusetts have an agenda to continue the reckless spending in Washington and to dramatically expand the size of government.

There is only one thing standing between these groups and their hope for a victory on January 19th, and that is you.

On Monday, January 11th we are having a moneybomb and I am asking for your pledge, right now. Once you make your pledge today, please return to RedInvadesBlue.com on Monday, January 11th to fulfill your pledge and make your contribution.

I refuse to let these far-left groups slow our momentum with their special interest money and I'm asking you to help us fight back, right now.

Our Brown Brigade is strong and our morale is high. Together, we have built a strong grassroots movement to win this special election for the United States Senate on January 19th and send a political shock-wave across the country and to the Washington establishment.

If we win on January 19th, it will deliver a devastating blow to the out-of-control spending bureaucrats and those that want a Government Run take-over of our health care.

You can send a strong message right now by going to RedInvadesBlue.com and making your pledge, right now.

To Victory,


Scott Brown

P.S. Our call from home application is a fantastic way to volunteer to reach the voters that we need to turn out on Election Day - it's critical to inform OUR voters about Election Day being January, 19.

Will Health Care Reform Tip Senate Race to GOP in Massachusetts?

The Massachusetts Senatorial special election to be held January 19th will be the tipping point for Republicans. It will allow them the critical 41st vote and enable them to filibuster, not to mention defeat the obaminable government run health care if it goes back to the Senate after reconciliation.

The election is between Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown in a very blue state, where odds are not in Brown's favor, even if every single registered Republican cast their vote. But, since there is so much at stake, word of mouth is essential. So, let's get out there and spread the word, along with a little prayer.

Pajamas Media writes:


Will Health Care Reform Tip Senate Race to GOP in Massachusetts?
In the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat, Republican Scott Brown might benefit from a backlash against the Bay State's own failing health insurance plan.
by Rand Simberg, January 2, 2010

There’s an election coming up in Massachusetts to replace Senator Ted Kennedy. Properly waged by the Republican, Scott Brown, it could become a perfect storm of the health care debate. Sissy Willis proposes that it be made a referendum on the potential national catastrophe being masticated by Congress, with the latest milestone the corrupt passage of the Senate version as early coal in the nation’s stocking on Christmas Eve. It has the potential to be a brilliant political move.

Consider: Ted Kennedy was the leading proponent of nationalizing health care for decades. When he died last year of brain cancer, the Democrats cynically (and shamefully, in my opinion) used the event to play on the emotions of those who might have loved him, but were less enamored with the proposal. “Pass it for Teddy,” was the cry. “Let it be his legacy.”

Consider also: Massachusetts is the home of a prototype of ObamaCare (thanks in no small part to Mitt Romney, the former Republican presidential candidate and Massachusetts governor). It (like the national plan percolating in Congress) mandated that all Massachusetts residents purchase health insurance. It seems to be failing on all fronts, with rising costs, more emergency room visits, and many unhappy residents. This may play no small part in Romney’s bid for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

Now, consider the timing. The special election will take place on January 19. It’s accepted political wisdom now that, despite the rush to vote before Christmas in the Senate, the conference and reconciliation between the House and Senate versions of the national plan cannot occur in time to allow a vote on the reconciled bill prior to February. That means that a referendum in Massachusetts on the subject could have an interesting effect on wavering votes in both the House and the Senate. There is no margin for error in the Senate, where the health care bill got exactly the sixty votes needed to pass, and a slim one in the House.

If a Republican running against ObamaCare managed to pick up the seat of Ted Kennedy, or even come close to doing so, it would be a political earthquake of Richter 8+. What would that say about the popularity of the bill if it wasn’t even a winning issue in the state that had the most first-hand experience with it, not to mention in the election to replace the senator who had been a leading proponent of it? It would make it very difficult for the Democrats to continue to delude themselves that this legislation is a winning issue in the country at large, if it clearly wasn’t in one of the bluest of the blue states.

Beyond that, it would create even more impetus for the Republicans going into next fall’s crucial races and their attempt to wrest control of Congress back from the Democrats. It might even provide them with enough momentum to undo some of the damage Democrats wreaked over the past three years since taking over, though they’d need an unlikely two-thirds to get past a presidential veto. Not to mention, of course, that replacing Ted Kennedy with Scott Brown would deprive Harry Reid of the sixtieth vote that he would need to pass a reconciled bill in February, effectively killing the monstrosity, at least for this session.

The question, of course, is: would it work?

If the Republican candidate does make it a major issue in the race, those defending the record of the Massachusetts plan will argue, no matter how illogically, that the reason that it isn’t working properly is that it isn’t national — that the pool isn’t big enough. Or they will claim that its implementation was flawed and that Washington will (somehow) get it right, even though it doesn’t currently seem to be doing much else very well. This includes performing the most fundamental responsibility of the federal government: defending the nation and its citizens from foreign threats. And perhaps their arguments will carry the day, given the nature of the Bay State electorate.

As National Review political analyst Jim Geraghty notes:

[T]o illustrate how tough the odds are for Brown, let’s pretend that every registered Republican in the state, as of 2008, shows up and votes for him. And let us pretend that the independents split evenly, and that only one third of the state’s Democrats show up and vote for Coakley.

Under that scenario, Coakley still wins by about 1,045 votes. That’s how steep an uphill battle Brown faces in this race.

On the other hand, some of his own contacts are more optimistic, noting that special elections tend to have low turnout among the complacent incumbent party. They also note that the New Jersey and Virginia races last fall show a Republican surge and enthusiasm and a turning of independents away from the Democrats that can only have increased given the events of the past couple months.

In any event, given that Brown has such an uphill battle anyway, as Willis points out, he has to do something to shake up this race if he’s to have a chance. What does he have to lose? And there is much potentially to gain, not just for his own race, but for the nation.


Rand Simberg is a recovering aerospace engineer and a consultant in space commercialization, space tourism and Internet security. He offers occasionally biting commentary about infinity and beyond at his weblog, Transterrestrial Musings.